Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-18-2016
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: September 20, 2016 Judgment Delivered on: October 18, 2016 CRL.A. 1573/2011 & Crl.M.B. 2270/2011 GAURI SHANKAR ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. STATE Versus ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.State.1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307/174A IPC Gauri Shankar challenges the impugned judgment dated June 02, 2011 and the order on sentence dated June 06, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1, Kusum on whose testimony the conv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-24-2016
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted, as charged, by judgment dated 21st March, 2016 of Court of Sessions for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) upholding the prosecution case that at about 6:15 p.m. on 20th August, 2011 on the terrace above Flat No.C-27/28, Kingsway Camp, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, he committed the murder of Rajvinder Kaur (the deceased) by intentionally inflicting multiple stab wounds and also having voluntarily caused hurt to Nisha (PW-2) by stabbing her with a sharp cutting instrument (knife). By order on sentence passed by the learned trial judge on 31st March, 2016, sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded for offence under Section 302 IPC besides rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.15,000/- for offenceunder Section 324 IPC. By the appeal at hand, the appellant (convict) seeks to assail both the judgment and the order on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-02-2016
1. Sanjay @ Kala, Suraj Prakash @ Chikka and Rakesh; the latter two being the appellants because vide impugned judgment dated January 08, 2014 Suraj Prakash has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and for which vide order on sentence dated January 16, 2015 he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and Rakesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC as also Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and vide order on sentence of even date has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the former offence and RI for a period of 3 years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the latter offence. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been extended. It is obvious that Sanjay @ Kala has been acquitted and the reason is neither the victim Sunil Sherawat who appeared as PW-9 nor the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-22-2016
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The judgment debtor appeals an order of the learned Single Judge who declined his objections to the attachment and sale of land. 2. This case has a complicated and chequered litigation history, recounted hereafter. The respondent (hereafter called "decree holder" and individually as "Manali" and "the daughter"-to describe the first and second respondents in the course of this judgment) applied for execution of the interim order dated 28.10.1998 of this Court (in I.A. Nos.11261/1997, 2634 and 2635/1998 in Suit No.2583/1997) The order directed, the appellant inter alia, to provide a residence to the respondent/decree holder in accordance with the family settlement agreement dated 04.11.1994 ( the settlement ) entered into between the parties. In terms of the settlement, a direction was made to deposit school fee and other charges in connection with studies of Decree Holder No.2 (hereafter the daughter ) and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month. Extrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-19-2016
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2005 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi decreeing Suit No.331/03 filed by the respondents for recovery of Rs.19,81,280/- with costs and interest at 9% per annum from 29th March, 2000 till realization against the appellant. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the decretal amount execution was stayed. The appeal on 6th October, 2006 was admitted for hearing and the maturity value of the fixed deposited created of the amount deposited by the appellant ordered to be released in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff subject to ultimate result of the appeal. The appeal, on 5th November, 2009 was dismissed in default of appearance of the appellant but notice of the application made by the appellant for restoration of the appeal was issued and remained pending for service of the respondent no.2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-18-2016
IA 2920/2016 1. By this order, I shall decide IA 2920/2016, which is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, 1908 wherein the plaintiff has sought the following reliefs: a) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, their life trustees, term trustees, advisories, members, franchisees, officers, employees, servants, agents, delegates, representatives, assignees, associates and all others acting for and on their behalf from offering their services, advertising, offering franchisees, selling goods and stationary, adopting, using and / or dealing in any manner with the registered trade mark / name 'DPS' and logo IMAGE (Plaintiff s registered mark) of the plaintiff or any other trade mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered trade marks of the plaintiff amounting to infringement and passing off the plaintiffs registered trade marks; b) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-05-2016
Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Pawan @ Ram Sala @ Chanda has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for murdering Govind Sarin @ Shanky vide impugned judgment dated November 24, 2015 and directed to undergo imprisonment for life vide order on sentence dated November 30, 2015 on the strength of the testimony of the two eye witnesses Tarun Arya @ Ginni, PW-1 and Sumit, PW-2. 2. Police machinery was set into motion on receipt of DD No.38A at Police Station Subzi Mandi on November 03, 2013 at 11.15 PM informing that a quarrel had taken place in Gali Mitra Wali, Roshanara Road, House No.4780, near Mata ka Mandir. DD No.38A was sent to SI Manish Kumar, PW-7 who was already in the area through Constable Rakesh PW-15 who reached the spot and found blood in front of House No.4783, Gali Mitranwali, Roshanara Road. The injured had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. So SI Mukesh Kumar reached Hindu Rao Hospital and collected MLC No.8626 on which the doctor endorsed brought dead . The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-21-2016
..... order till completion of pleadings by the parties. 10. the learned single judge has come to a prima-facie conclusion that at this stage at least the play lists of nepali nasha and haroon ka nasha in the website of 8 tracks.com are existing since the years 2012 and 2013 and of nashamusic.com since 2006, which websites have existed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-29-2016
I.S. Mehta, J. 1. The present petitioners, i.e., Workmen, DDA (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-workmen ) have preferred the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate Writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned Award dated 01.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator ) in I.D. No. 20/1997. 2. The brief facts stated are that the petitioner-workmen, i.e., Shri Ramgopal Singh, Shri Adil Singh, Shri Rajinder Prasad, Shri Kartar Singh, Shri Kamal Kishore, Shri Hoshiar Singh, Shri Nepal Singh, Shri Virender Singh, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Prem Chand, Shri Amrinder Kumar Singh, Shri Bhim Singh, Shri Yogender Kumar, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Rakesh Kushwaha, Shri Babu Ram, Mohd. Sarfarajuddin and Shri Ashok Kumar, whose cause of action has been exposed through the D.D.A Mazdoor Union wherein the petitioner-workme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-2016
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the provisional attachment order dated 24.01.2014 (hereafter impugned order') passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement under section 5 (1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act') whereby the entire basement and ground floor of the property situated at E-14/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi belonging to Smt. Alka Rajvansh has been attached considering it as proceeds of crime. 2. The brief facts that are relevant for examining the controversy in the present petition are as under:- 2.1 On 08.05.2009, an FIR was lodged by the CBI on a written complaint made by Shri S.K. Maggu, Deputy Manager of National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (hereafter NAFED') wherein it was alleged that Mr Homi Rajvansh - the Additional Managing Director of NAFED, had hatched a conspiracy, in connivance with the directors of M/s M.K. Agri International Ltd. (hereafter MKAIL'), for m...
Tag this Judgment!